Police ticket Google Glass-wearing driver for watching “TV” in car

Did I break the law, officer, or did I just blow your mind?

A California woman was apparently pulled over and given a ticket for driving while wearing Google Glass last night. Cecilia Abadie took to Google+ to post a picture of the ticket she received in San Diego, which says she was guilty of "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google Glass)."

The police officer cited a California law stating that "[a] person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle."

Abadie was also cited for speeding. The officer may have noticed that she was wearing Google Glass after pulling her over and decided to add a second infraction.

However, Abadie may have good cause to fight the Glass-related portion of the citation. The California rule provides exceptions for video equipment if it provides a "global positioning display" or "mapping display." Google Glass can of course be used as a GPS. A California driver handbook summarizes the rule and its exceptions by saying, "Do not drive a vehicle equipped with a video monitor, if the monitor is visible to the driver and displays anything other than vehicle information global mapping displays, external media player (MP3), or satellite radio information."

Abadie's post has garnered more than 200 comments, with one person calling the law "amazingly ambiguous."

"Please please please, fight this in court. We need to get a ruling on this," the commenter said.

Abadie seems inclined to fight the ticket. "It's all in how a judge will interpret it and I suspect their love or hate and understanding of the technology might help or the opposite," she wrote.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:(1) A vehicle information display.(2) A global positioning display.(3) A mapping display.

That does not say "is capable of providing a...". So the question is, I think, is Google Glass "a global positioning display" or does being multifunctional mean it fails to fall into that category?

Of course as constructed, this issue would also apply to a smartphone in a dock on the dash. It is capable of showing video, and visible to the driver. There's nothing unique here about Google Glass per se. With that in mind, I would hate to see the law applied here.

You *can* use Google Glass for GPS, but she could have been browsing through her Facebook postings, for all we know. You can also use a phone as a GPS device, but you will still get a citation if you're driving with your phone in front of your nose. I don't think this will be easy to fight in court. And I wonder if Google will have to add some functionality that lets you only do a small number of things while you're in motion wearing Glass.

The headline here is misleading. She wasn't ticketed for watching "TV." That's not what's on the ticket. It's described as "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver." By any reasonable interpretation, Google Glass's display IS a monitor that "produces entertainment or business applications." So why say she was ticketed for having a TV? She wasn't. It seems as though wearing Glass is clearly covered by the law.

You *can* use Google Glass for GPS, but she could have been browsing through her Facebook postings, for all we know. You can also use a phone as a GPS device, but you will still get a citation if you're driving with your phone in front of your nose. I don't think this will be easy to fight in court. And I wonder if Google will have to add some functionality that lets you only do a small number of things while you're in motion wearing Glass.

I don't see anything wrong with the actions of the officer involved, if that is indeed a law.But that law definitely needs more clarity to fit with the embedded screens a lot of cars have; I'm pretty sure I know of screens that can display E-mails, weather, or even any number of Android apps. The law is far more clear-cut if you're using some sort of dedicated GPS device vs a Nintendo DS, but we have far more multi-purpose displays now.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:(1) A vehicle information display.(2) A global positioning display.(3) A mapping display.

That does not say "is capable of providing a...". So the question is, I think, is Google Glass "a global positioning display" or does being multifunctional mean it fails to fall into that category?

Of course as constructed, this issue would also apply to a smartphone in a dock on the dash. It is capable of showing video, and visible to the driver. There's nothing unique here about Google Glass per se. With that in mind, I would hate to see the law applied here.

Watching TV while driving is a normal thing in Japan. To the point where drivers go ~35kph on a wide road with 50 limit because they're catching up on their favorite program. But don't get the impression that everyone drives slowly and gently here

This is a good application of existing law to cover new technology. It also shows why redundant "anti-idiot" cell phone laws weren't needed: the problem could have been addressed by using negligent/reckless driving laws already on the books in most jurisdictions.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:(1) A vehicle information display.(2) A global positioning display.(3) A mapping display.

That does not say "is capable of providing a...". So the question is, I think, is Google Glass "a global positioning display" or does being multifunctional mean it fails to fall into that category?

Of course as constructed, this issue would also apply to a smartphone in a dock on the dash. It is capable of showing video, and visible to the driver. There's nothing unique here about Google Glass per se. With that in mind, I would hate to see the law applied here.

I think a better question would be how the "when installed in a vehicle" will be interpreted. I'm pretty sure that, should you get a ticket for texting on the wheel, you will not be able to fight it just because you used a smartphone that has a GPS app installed..

Beside, call me stupid but I find it reasonable not to allow drivers to use gadgets like google glass on the wheel: I can perfectly understand how distracting these could be.

I assume if she writes to Google she could get them to send a lawyer to show up in traffic court on her behalf.

I'm sure they have a vested interest in this not being some sort of precedent.

I agree that they (Google) may have an interest in nipping it in the bud as precedent, but I don't see any legal grounds for them to directly support her, in this case. To do so, they'd have to prove that Google Glass could not possibly have been in use for any but the clearly exempted purposes. Not gonna happen. I think she's on her own.

For Google itself to have any influence here, they would have to do something like EagerEyes suggested: make it impossible to break that law - disable the use of the device for any nonexempt use. Again, not gonna happen - in my opinion. The technical challenges are significant, and liability might arise.

"Please please please, fight this in court. We need to get a ruling on this," the commenter said.

I don't see how fighting this in traffic court will matter to anyone but her. Aren't those generally just 30 second snap decisions by a judge? It's not like a judge is going to go research rulings, or even care how some other judge ruled if you present that as precedence.

And I wonder if Google will have to add some functionality that lets you only do a small number of things while you're in motion wearing Glass.

Not sure, really. They don't seem to block SMS or video player or any other application from operation while in motion. I'd imagine that since different states and jurisdictions have different specifics as to what you can and cannot use while driving, it would make more sense to just make the software and then the user has the responsibility to use it according to his or her local laws. If a cop sees me texting while driving in my state, he's probably going to give me a ticket. I'd imagine that in other states that isn't currently a law so I would just be doing something possibly irresponsible instead of illegal.

Either way, I don't know that a software restriction would make sense because there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be using such a device while in motion (on a bus, as a passenger in a car, etc).

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:(1) A vehicle information display.(2) A global positioning display.(3) A mapping display.

That does not say "is capable of providing a...". So the question is, I think, is Google Glass "a global positioning display" or does being multifunctional mean it fails to fall into that category?

Of course as constructed, this issue would also apply to a smartphone in a dock on the dash. It is capable of showing video, and visible to the driver. There's nothing unique here about Google Glass per se. With that in mind, I would hate to see the law applied here.

I think a better question would be how the "when installed in a vehicle" will be interpreted. I'm pretty sure that, should you get a ticket for texting on the wheel, you will not be able to fight it just because you used a smartphone that has a GPS app installed..

Beside, call me stupid but I find it reasonable not to allow drivers to use gadgets like google glass on the wheel: I can perfectly understand how distracting these could be.

What about using a radio, GPS, or even looking at your information panel? These can be just as distracting.

However, Abadie may have good cause to fight the Glass-related portion of the citation. The California rule provides exceptions for video equipment if it provides a "global positioning display" or "mapping display." Google Glass can of course be used as a GPS. A California driver handbook summarizes the rule and its exceptions by saying, "Do not drive a vehicle equipped with a video monitor, if the monitor is visible to the driver and displays anything other than vehicle information global mapping displays, external media player (MP3), or satellite radio information."

How do smartphones/tablets fit in these exceptions? I use my phone all the time as a GPS, fixed on the dashboard using a car mount. But while I mostly use it for GPS, the phone is perfectly capable of playing or streaming video, or of being used as (gasp!) a phone, with the screen showing contacts/dial buttons. Is this admissible given the current laws?

I agree that they (Google) may have an interest in nipping it in the bud as precedent, but I don't see any legal grounds for them to directly support her, in this case. To do so, they'd have to prove that Google Glass could not possibly have been in use for any but the clearly exempted purposes. Not gonna happen. I think she's on her own.

You don't need "grounds" to pay for someone else's lawyer. Or that much of a set of grounds to file an amicus brief. Not that google is going to bother for a traffic ticket.

This makes me a bit nervous. My newish car doesn't have integrated GPS. I do, however, have an arm on my dash that connects to my Nexus 7. Technically I could be browsing my Facebooks, or watching the latest season of Archer. In reality it's a strictly GPS device when being used in that context. Also, the fact that it's not built into the car could be another strike against me. Luckily I live in Nevada where we never implement any of California's idiotic laws.

This was bound to happen. Anything that distracts a driver's attention away from driving, especially their visual attention is dangerous. Science has proven, though people insist otherwise, that people are not good at multitasking. People don't know just how obvious it looks to those behind them that they are not focusing on the task of driving, either going too fast, too slow, driving at erratic speeds, wandering or wobbling all over their lane of traffic.

Google glass may have to get a new feature to recognize that a person is behind the wheel of a car, at least until Google cars become common place. Then people can do what ever they would rather prefer they do instead of driving.

Google Glass should have incorporated those newer mobile device safety features preventing distracting usage when in fast motion (such as a moving vehicle).

There's no technology I'm aware of that can differentiate between someone driving a vehicle while using a device, and a passenger legitimately doing the same.

The more likely result is that we'll have to put up with yet another pointless disclaimer. It still drives me nuts that virtually every GPS navigation device forces you to dismiss a disclaimer on boot up agreeing not to fiddle with it while the vehicle is in motion.

The technical challenges are NOT significant. Have the device checks GPS positioning for a set time frame. Perform a simple calculation to determine speed/velocity and position. If a threshold is met, all distracting functions of Google Glass are suspended except GPS map functionality.

You do realize this would disable a devices functionality, even if you're riding on a bus or sitting in the back seat while someone else drives?

What about using a radio, GPS, or even looking at your information panel? These can be just as distracting.

If you do anything in a car that causes you to be distracted, it should be covered under negligent/reckless driving.

The only difference being that instead of banning actions outright, negligent/reckless driving depends upon the results of the action.

Edit: If I take a bite of my sandwhich at a red light, no real harm done. If I take a bite while driving and swerve dramatically, I should get a ticket. We don't need a law specifically regulating the eating of 8" sub sandwiches while driving. With cell phones, I would argue there's plenty of evidence regarding their danger as to not warrant needing a separate law; the scientific evidence should make any negligence/reckless ticket stand up in court.

I assume if she writes to Google she could get them to send a lawyer to show up in traffic court on her behalf.

I'm sure they have a vested interest in this not being some sort of precedent.

I agree that they (Google) may have an interest in nipping it in the bud as precedent, but I don't see any legal grounds for them to directly support her, in this case. To do so, they'd have to prove that Google Glass could not possibly have been in use for any but the clearly exempted purposes. Not gonna happen. I think she's on her own.

For Google itself to have any influence here, they would have to do something like EagleEyes suggested: make it impossible to break that law - disable the use of the device for any nonexempt use. Again, not gonna happen - in my opinion. The technical challenges are significant, and liability might arise.

The technical challenges are NOT significant. Have the device checks GPS positioning for a set time frame. Perform a simple calculation to determine speed/velocity and position. If a threshold is met, all distracting functions of Google Glass are suspended except GPS map functionality.

And what about passengers in a car? Should we suspend all entertainment functionality because you're a bit paranoid? What about people who commute via train, or joggers able to sustain 10-15 mph?

Google Glass should have incorporated those newer mobile device safety features preventing distracting usage when in fast motion (such as a moving vehicle).

There's no technology I'm aware of that can differentiate between someone driving a vehicle while using a device, and a passenger legitimately doing the same.

The more likely result is that we'll have to put up with yet another pointless disclaimer. It still drives me nuts that virtually every GPS navigation device forces you to dismiss a disclaimer on boot up agreeing not to fiddle with it while the vehicle is in motion.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I would much rather be inconvenienced than my car crushed by some distracted driver watching YouTube while their vehicle barrels through a red light or stop sign.

This is a good application of existing law to cover new technology. It also shows why redundant "anti-idiot" cell phone laws weren't needed: the problem could have been addressed by using negligent/reckless driving laws already on the books in most jurisdictions.

Am I incorrect that this was a "redundant 'anti-idiot' cellphone law?" Pretty sure the "while a screen is visible" law was added in recent years to tighten up the existing cellphone restrictions and reduce ambiguity.

I have to wonder if there's more to the story than the woman lets on. Like perhaps she was also exhibiting the clear signs of someone distracted by their phone (drifting in a lane, variable speeds, etc.), or that maybe she even admitted to it being on and not using it as just a GPS, but actually checking messages or Facebook.

The driver was ticketed for speeding, not because she was wearing a stupid pair of glasses. Although I wish she would have been ticketed solely for wearing those stupid things. Just like every other article on this, the title is incredibly misleading and solely written for click bait.

Edit: downvote me all you want, but the law already covers this and that's why I believe this article to be click bait like the rest of them/. Read California DMV code before you click the down arrow people. This is not something that needs clarification as far as the law goes. Driving with these stupid things on your face is defined within already written driving code. If I'm getting down votes because I think these things are stupid looking, I'm sorry. They're stupid looking, end of story.

I think that the google glass is intrusive and distracting enough to be banned while driving . The exceptions you mention to fight the case are even more vague . This is not the case where a police officer is so "fearful of technology" that decided to punish it.

What about using a radio, GPS, or even looking at your information panel? These can be just as distracting.

The daughters of a friend of mine were in an accident last year: a driver coming from the opposite direction was playing with his radio and, distracted, steered out of his lane and hit their car. They were extremely lucky and survived with only minor injuries but the other car's driver died.

So yeah, I agree that google glasses are definitely not the only thing that can distract a driver and cause an accident.

However, in theory, onboard equipment is designed to minimize that problem as much as possible: big lettering, big buttons, few options, etc. Our smartphone apps, as well as the google glasses apps, aren't built with the same idea in mind.

Frankly, when I see how some people drive, I think that, in that particular case, I'm all for a zero tolerance rule against everything that is not strictly necessary for driving the car.

If this gets upheld, doesn't this also mean that anyone using GPS on their phone could be ticketed for the same thing?

I'd imagine at least a few people in CA regularly use their phones for GPS even though they could be used for "watching TV", etc.

I doubt it will prevent smartphones from being used as GPS. Look at the Driver's Handbook summary quoted:

"Do not drive a vehicle equipped with a video monitor, if the monitor is visible to the driver and displays anything other than vehicle information global mapping displays, external media player (MP3), or satellite radio information."

It reads like the law isn't concerned with what the device is capable of displaying. It's concerned with what the device is ACTUALLY displaying.

A phone mounted on your dash as a GPS will quite clearly be displaying a map/directions. If you get pulled over and that phone is showing your Twitter or Facebook feed instead? Yeah, you'll probably get cited.

The "precedent" or "ruling" most of the other users want won't be a lot of help in this case. If she fights this and wins the decision would be binding only on the lower court that issued the decision (in this case whatever small traffic court holds her hearing). There wouldn't be a published opinion to cite, and even if there was other courts could just ignore it (persuasive authority, perhaps, but not binding).

Of course all of that changes if she is convicted and appeals. Then there is a chance of something useful coming out of this. But this is a traffic ticket. She needs to cut a deal, and assuming that there are no points for the Google glass infraction, the advisable deal is drop the speeding charge and pay the fine for the Google glass charge (admitting guilt in the process). Battling over this is not even remotely in her best interest.

I don't see anything wrong with the actions of the officer involved, if that is indeed a law.But that law definitely needs more clarity to fit with the embedded screens a lot of cars have; I'm pretty sure I know of screens that can display E-mails, weather, or even any number of Android apps. The law is far more clear-cut if you're using some sort of dedicated GPS device vs a Nintendo DS, but we have far more multi-purpose displays now.

The law covers in-dash systems. California law states you can't have a screen directly in your line of vision that provides a way to view things that are for entertainment or business use with specific requirements and exceptions. That's why all those systems are in the dash and not above the instrument cluster. Pretty sure the manufacturers are ahead of you and wouldn't sell a car that clearly breaks California laws because we know just how draconian and stupid California laws are when it comes to cars.

This is definitely something that needs clarification and development, probably from both a legal and a technical point of view. Augmented reality is going to become a bigger and bigger deal as time goes on, and it doesn't make sense to treat it the same way as (for example) a phone. While a lot of people already seem to be jumping on "well she could have been browsing social media," AR should also be able to actually improve safety by acting as a universal HUD that allows information including directions, speed, etc to be displayed without the driver needing to look away from the road at all. That would actually be an improvement even over existing dashboards.

AR could also interface with infrared cameras (already found on very high end cars) and other sensors to improve driver perception beyond human limits, and to enable more flexibility in the design of cars. That has massive, massive potential. Where I live for example, deer and particularly moose are a serious hazard. Moose are massive, dark, often too high for headlights to do more then show their (dark, hard to see) legs, and do not have reflective eyes. Hitting moose or deer makes for a very bad night. But a simple smart IR/NV overlay and they'd suddenly become 100% visible no matter how dark it was, even before they got close to the road.

Or take physical. There's are tradeoffs when it comes to designing optimal aerodynamic efficiency, passenger cage safety, and the ability of the driver to see in all directions. But with AR and a set of cameras/range sensors around the car, it'd be possible for the driver to "see through" the structure of the car (or passengers or luggage). Zero blind spots, total visibility, the ability to perfectly gauge where the edges of the car are in relation to anything else, all with any car design at all.

So while recognizing the potential for abuse we should also keep in mind the potential gains and not throw out the good with the bad. Perhaps some sort of standard for a "driver mode" for AR systems such that they only allow car interface/GPS/emergency call work while in that mode. I don't think a total ban is at all a good idea, but there is certainly an interest in not having people emailing/texting/playing games/watching movies while driving also.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:(1) A vehicle information display.(2) A global positioning display.(3) A mapping display.

That does not say "is capable of providing a...". So the question is, I think, is Google Glass "a global positioning display" or does being multifunctional mean it fails to fall into that category?

Of course as constructed, this issue would also apply to a smartphone in a dock on the dash. It is capable of showing video, and visible to the driver. There's nothing unique here about Google Glass per se. With that in mind, I would hate to see the law applied here.

I think a better question would be how the "when installed in a vehicle" will be interpreted. I'm pretty sure that, should you get a ticket for texting on the wheel, you will not be able to fight it just because you used a smartphone that has a GPS app installed..

Beside, call me stupid but I find it reasonable not to allow drivers to use gadgets like google glass on the wheel: I can perfectly understand how distracting these could be.

I agree with not allowing drivers to use gadgets like Google Glass, but I think texting while driving is by far one of the worse things you can do. At least with Google Glass you can use voice commands and the road remains in your peripherals. When texting, you not only take your eyes completely off the road but you also take a hand off as well. I don't even want to mention how many bicycles I've lost on the back of my car because the person behind me was texting...